HUNTSVILLE, AL — Already dealing with an ongoing financial crisis that’s forcing layoffs and possible school closures, Huntsville City Schools now faces the threat of a lawsuit from the NAACP.

Local NAACP chapter president Alice Sams ripped the school system in a press conference Monday morning, while also presenting a list of demands the organization wants fulfilled immediately.

Sams and other leaders from Huntsville’s black community are accusing Huntsville City Schools of creating a divided system tilted against black students. The NAACP said the school district has failed to abide by a 1970 federal court order that officially eliminated segregation in schools for Alabama and other southern states.

“We have compiled a list of concerns, which in short is entitled ‘What We Want,” said Sams. “If satisfactory steps are not taken to satisfy our concerns, we may petition the state department of education to take over Huntsville City Schools and request Department of Justice and federal court intervention.”

NAACP officials say the alleged inequalities will only be made greater if several schools targeted for closure in predominantly black North Huntsville end up shutting their doors. The organization cited a forty point achievement gap between black and white students on standardized state tests, calling the results unfair and unacceptable. Sams said the blame did not fall on students or their parents, but rather on schools she claims are inferior compared to those in predominantly white South Huntsville. School closures are a likelihood as the district aims to overcome a $20 million budget deficit.

“It is our opinion that we have a divided system,” said Sams. “One for black students in the north end of town, separate, unequal and academically unsucessful; and one for the white students on the south end of town…All efforts to terminate the 1970 court order will be opposed by us until concerns to satisfy the racial and academic inequalities as stated are resolved.”

Sams ended her speech with a bold statement.

“Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolution inevitable,” said Sams, who quoted former president John F. Kennedy. When asked to clarify her remarks hose who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolution inevitableand how it applied to the context of the school system, she referred back to the original quote.

“You know what the quote means,” said Sams. “I quoted the president (Kennedy). He was a peaceful president, so I did a quote. You can interpret it anyway you want to, I just quoted.”

School board attorney J.R. Brooks declined our request for an on-camera interview and did not respond to the NAACP’s claims. He only said the school district had always been in compliance with federal court orders issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, and that the school board had no control or authority over people who had voluntarily moved in and out of North Huntsville since 1970.

Nothing in the mainstream news coverage about this as a racist remark or an instigation to violence. No depiction of, “Violent revolution is inevitable. And it will all be whitey’s fault when it comes.”

Now the media could have heard the words “violent revolution is inevitable” from the NAACP and immediately associated them with the views of a different black organization:

Samir: We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.

Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”

“I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

“We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”

Now, it would have been very easy for the mainstream media to take the statement, “Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” and point out that in this case the inevitable “violent revolution” means killing crackers, killing white babies, and dealing harshly with white, dirty cracker whores. And the revolution will be over when “whitey dead.” You’ve got a call or at least a prediction of violent revolution coming from a specifically black and race-based organization, and you’ve got a very detailed description of what such black and race-based violent revolution would look like.

But they didn’t. After all, John Kennedy said those words, and he was a Democrat, so it obviously can’t be bad. And the black president of the NAACP is, of course, a sacred cow in the mainstream media, and her motives are beyond questioning. Ever.

Now let’s look at how the mainstream media deals with conservatives who would dare to quote great minds of the past who held great warnings for the future:

Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee for Harry Reid’s Nevada Senate seat, has called for armed revolt against the government. Glenn Beck’s new novel, The Overton Window, encourages concerned citizens to pick up a weapon, too. And they’re not the only public figures calling for violent insurrection.

In January right-wing radio host Lars Larson asked Tea Party favorite Angle where she stood on Second Amendment issues. She replied:

“You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

“I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, My goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”

We presume she means “take Harry Reid out” by means of the ballot box. Or even more charitably, perhaps for dinner to discuss the bizarre and extreme direction American politics has taken since Barack Obama’s election in 2008. Because Angle is not the only prominent figure, or even the only politician who has recently called for armed revolution.

Rick Barber, a candidate in the Republican primary for Alabama’s Second Congressional District, released an ad which ends with an actor dressed as George Washington declaring “Gather your armies.” Presumably to storm the same Congress that Barber is hoping to join.

The Overton Window, Beck’s new novel, is also out today. According to a Washington Post review, it is a parable on worthy insurrection in which earnest, plucky American patriots arm to fight an evil plot by elites bent on a government takeover. Beck calls it ‘faction’—which is a melding of ‘fact,’ and ‘fiction,’ apparently. “If the book is found tucked into the ammo boxes of self-proclaimed patriots,” writes the reviewer Steven Levingston, “…Beck will have achieved his goal.”

“The Overton Window,” Levingston concludes, “risks falling into the tradition of other anti-government novels such as The Turner Diaries, by William L. Pierce, which became a handbook of extremists and inspired Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.”

Meanwhile, in Oklahoma City in April 2010, Tea Party leaders and conservative members of the state legislature decided to try to create an armed state militia “to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty,” according to the Associated Press. The group hopes to get legislation to recognize the new force by next year.

At around the same time as that plan was announced, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota told WWTC 1280 AM that she too wanted people “armed and dangerous,” on the issue of Obama’s energy bill, “because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson,” she said, her words becoming eerily familiar, “told us, ‘Having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people—we the people—are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.”

Violent revolt is a regular theme of Rush Limbaugh’s too. And Sarah Palin made what some considered to be her own coded call to arms when she aired a new catchphrase—”Don’t retreat, reload”—for her followers. She later said, during a speech in Nevada, that she was telling people, “Their arms are their votes. It’s not inciting violence. It’s telling people, Don’t ever let anybody tell you to sit down and shut up, Americans.”

Will the deniable words and twisted justifications for violence reach critical mass and push one unstable person over the edge? Hopefully we’ll never have to find out. (Or at least find out again.)

That’s Newsweek making all those sweeping connections, hardly insignificant stuff. Did they look at all the hatred and calls for violence coming from the left and see a pattern? Not with the king size blinders over their left side, they sure didn’t. They take a couple of quotes from rightwing figures, run them through the filter of leftwing analysis such as the Washington Post who of course see “rightwing hatred and intolerance,” and then say, “See how evil they are?” So Newsweek can connect Glenn Beck directly to Timothy McVeigh because another leftist publication made that connection for them, and Newseek is merely “reporting the facts.”

The media could obviously, of course, do unto the left exactly what they manage to do unto the right on a daily, almost second-by-second basis. But they won’t. Because they are leftwing propagandists, and honesty, facts and truth are the last things on their minds. I am quite willing to entertain the notion that NAACP president Alice Sams did not intend to make a call to violence. But if you’re going to argue that Sharon Angle did, at least be fair for once in your life. If quoting something because John F. Kennedy – the president who got America deeper into the Cold War, deeper into Vietnam and very deeply indeed into the Bay of Pigs mess – wasn’t violent, then why must quoting something that President Thomas Jefferson said be taken as violent? If we’re going to be fair for just two seconds? Shouldn’t the benefit of the doubt swing both ways once in a while?

But it never does.

So the media as a matter of routine blithely ignores all the giant logs of hate and anger and outright calls of violence there are coming from their own beloved left, but man do they spot every splinter coming from the despised right.

Now, you could point out that the NAACP president quoted John F. Kennedy whereas Sharon Angle quoted a hated founding father who helped lay the foundation for the even more hated Constitution. Which of course the left only hates less than the Holy Bible.

But that only gets us back to the rabid bias and the contempt for truth that the media manages to exhibit every minute of every day.

For the record, I am not a journalist and I do not profess to be one. I do not claim that I am “objective” and “nonpartisan.” So please don’t call me a hypocrite for doing the same thing that I say that mainstream media is doing. If you do so, I will immediately quote what I wrote here and correctly call you an idiot. Because unless and until the mainstream media says, “We’re a bunch of liberal ideologues and we all only see things from a leftwing perspective and denounce the right as a matter of reflex,” I’m NOT doing what the mainstream media does. Because unlike the mainstream media, I tell you exactly what perspective I’m coming from. The banner directly under my “Start Thinking Right” site name reads, “Michael Eden’s discussion of the two forbidden subjects – politics and religion – from a conservative perspective.” Unlike the deceitful mainstream media which reveals naked bias every single day, I never claim to be a neutral observer and objective reporter of the facts. Rather, I proudly report the facts from a stated Judeo-Christian and conservative world view. I never smuggle in my ideological bias and then report “opinion” as news like the mainstream media does in virtually every story they cover.

For the further record, I don’t denounce the mainstream media for their leftwing point of view; I denounce them for their blatantly false self-depiction of neutrality and objectivity when it is clearly not true.

One can only look at the moral and psychological insanity of the left and whistle in amazement.

The demonic left heard that a Democrat U.S. Representative had been shot (never mind that she was one of the more conservative Democrats in the House) and immediately concluded that a Republican conservative tea party member – well, make that ALL Republicans, ALL conservatives and ALL tea party members – were guilty of the crime.

Democrats IMMEDIATELY resorted to the worst kind of demonizing, hatred and lies:

But that was a lie. Jared Loughner never served a day in the military, let alone pull a combat tour. In fact, the Army threw him out of one of their recruiting stations when they found out he was a pothead.

“There was a lot of talk about lucid dreaming and understanding reality. . . . And there were a lot of books and movies . . . things that I never would have heard about or watched — things like Loose Change about the 9/11 conspiracy.”

According to reviews, Zeitgeist is anti-Christian, anti-George Bush and anti-capitalism. And I just scratch my head bleeding wondering which of the two parties would be those three things. The plot of Loose Change can be summed up in three words” Bush did it.

Let’s just put aside the facts which all line up to say that if Jared Loughner was anything, he was a far-left liberal loon.

And let’s just put the icing on the cake. Was Jared Loughner a conservative or was he a liberal? Let’s ask the liberal “newspaper of record,” a.k.a. The New York Times:

“He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.”

Bingo. If The New York Slimes says it, it clearly must be true.

Jared Loughner was a liberal.

If you listen to or watch or read any source that ever once mentioned that right wing rhetoric or conservative anger or any such thing contributed to the Tucson, Arizona shooting, you are tuning in to a demonstrated source of propaganda and lies.

Every Democrat politician (and like the demons who called themselves “Legion, for we are many” in Luke 8:30, they are legion) and mainstream media figure who alluded to conservative anger in this tragedy should be forced to resign in disgrace for their disgrace of the truth.

This is hopefully turning into a nightmare for the unhinged left (or should I just dispense with the need for redundant adjectives and simply say ‘the left’?) following their despicable demonization of conservatives as they sought to exploit the tragedy in Tucson, Arizona.

None of that stopped the immoral and hypocrite left from loudly denouncing conservatives for somehow being responsible for the shooting. Because facts are irrelevant to these people, and all that matters is their exploitation of even the worst tragedies for their political ends.

If there wasn’t already a “strike three,” this latest surely qualifies:

(KGUN) –The meeting room at St. Odilia’s Catholic Church on the city’s northwest side was packed with local dignitaries, witnesses to the mass shooting Jan. 8, some of the witnesses to the shootings and the first responders to the scene for a taping of an ABC-TV special, a town hall event, at 11 a.m. Saturday. Host of the program, This Week, is Christianne Amanpour. The show will air at 7 a.m. Sunday on KGUN9-TV.

…

Toward the end of the town hall meeting Saturday morning, one of the shooting victims, J. Eric Fuller, took exception to comments by two of the speakers: Ariz. state Rep. Terri Proud, a Dist. 26 Republican, and Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries.

According to sheriff’s deputies at the scene, Fuller took a photo of Humphries and said, “You’re Dead.”

Deputies immediately escorted Fuller from the room.

Pima County Sheriff’s spokesman Jason Ogan said later Saturday that Fuller has been charged with threats and intimidation and he also will be charged with disorderly conduct.

Among the dignitaries at the town hall taping were Mayor Bob Walkup, U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva and former Congressman Jim Kolbe.

ABC News dubbed the town hall, “After the Tragedy: An American Conversation Continued.”

A press released stated that the event will restart the conversation that Giffords began. “Among those who will join the Town Hall: family members of victims, citizens who took heroic action and community leaders,” the press release stated.

That’s right: after all the denunciation of “rightwing hate,” it turns out that the ONLY actual political hate and death threats associated in any way with the Tucson shooting came out of the mouth of A DEMOCRAT and was aimed at a Republican Representative and at a Tea Party spokesman.

It literally happened on camera, so poor leftwing loon Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had absolutely no choice but to arrest fellow leftwing loon James Eric Fuller and prove how full of crap his “anti-conservative rhetoric” rhetoric was.

Remember, dozens of elected Democrat officials and HUNDREDS of mainstream media “journalists” repeatedly denounced the “climate of hate” created by the political right. It doesn’t matter which network you want to point at: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, you name it; they ALL despicably targeted conservatives in general and conservatives in particular (e.g., Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh). And what we now know is that the whole rotten bunch of them are the worst kind of hypocrites and liars.

The self-described liberal and military veteran became distraught Saturday, authorities said, when he began ranting at the end of a televised town hall meeting about the tragedy. He took a picture of a local tea party leader and yelled “you’re dead” before calling others in the church a bunch of “whores,” authorities said.

Deputies arrested him and called a doctor. They decided he should be taken to a hospital for a mental evaluation, said Pima County sheriff’s spokesman Jason Ogan said. […]

He also lashed out at conservative Republicans for “Second Amendment activism,” arguing it set the stage for the shooting. […]

Later, he showed up at the home of accused gunman Jared Loughner, who lived within a half-mile of Fuller.

Okay, so this liberal flew who flew into a rage and literally threatened the life of a conservative for the simple reason that he (along with another elected representative who could be next to be murdered) believed in the 2nd Amendment. And they deserve to die for that. But this “self-described liberal” who is so intolerant of conservatives that he’s screaming “You’re dead!” and calling them “whores” decides to forgive who? Just the murderous psychopathic vermin who went on a shooting rampage.

And there is your quintessential liberal moral insanity: forgive the sociopathic drug-addict murderer, forgive the terrorists; when it comes to “punishing your enemies” – as Obama described – it refers to American conservatives.

So when it comes to the last mass-murdering psychopathic psychiatrist named Nidal Malik Hasan – who shouted “Allahu Akbar!” and who had business cards bearing the message “Soldier of Allah” while murdering 13 American soldiers and wounding 28 – Democrats told us not to jump to any conclusions, etc. etc. But the moment they had an opportunity to “punish their enemies” (i.e. conservatives), well boy oh boy the fangs and the hell in their souls came out.

If you bother to stop watching the Joseph Goebbels media-machine and learn the truth, what you find is that there is a long and profound history of violence and threats of violence coming from the left, not the right.

Barack Obama gave a speech for which he was widely praised even by conservatives Wednesday night in a memorial for the Tucson shooting victims at the University of Arizona. Do you know why he was so praised by conservatives? Because, unlike EVERY SINGLE OTHER TIME, a Democrat passed up the opportunity to demonize Republicans for an act of random violence. And should you really get praised for not doing something that is immoral and despicable in the first place???

I can’t wait for the day when Democrats develop the capacity for self-reflection and personal shame. Because you people ought to be absolutely ashamed at yourselves for what you’ve done this past week.

The following article will consist in two parts: 1) A detailing of just a few of the profoundly hateful rhetoric that comes out of the left on a routine basis, which clearly refutes the idea that some sort of “climate of hate” is being generated by the right wing; and 2) my argument why “political rhetoric” – which is free speech that should be protected by anyone who values American society – should have nothing to do with acts of violence.

Allow me to state at the outset that, when we look at Jared Loughner, what we find is that he had a grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords dating back to 2007. That grudge predates Sarah Palin; it predates the Tea Party movement; it predates the so-called “rightwing rhetoric” against Barack Obama. In fact, Loughner’s hatred of Rep. Giffords actually occurred during the LEFTWING hatred targeting George W. Bush and Republicans. And we find that while Loughner nowhere mentioned Sarah Palin, the tea party movement, ObamaCare, conservatives, or anything “right wing,” he DID repeatedly mention his belief that George Bush was responsible for engineering the 9/11 attacks.

Let’s take a moment and look at the hatred of the left, and realize just how amazingly laughable it is for the left to claim the moral high ground regarding any “climate of hate,” and recognize that they did nothing more than despicably try to seize political advantage from a terrible tragedy:

■ “I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!” — Left-wing radio host Mike Malloy on the January 4, 2010 Mike Malloy Show, talking about Rush Limbaugh going to the hospital after suffering chest pains.

■ MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in 2009 fantasized about the death of Rush Limbaugh: “Somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp”

■ Author/humorist P.J. O’Rourke: “It’s the twilight of the radio loud-mouth, you know? I knew it from the moment the fat guy-”
Host Bill Maher: “You mean Rush Limbaugh and Sean-”
O’Rourke: “-from the moment the fat guy refused to share his drugs….”Maher: “You mean the OxyContin that he was on?…Why couldn’t he have croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger?” — HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, February 8, 2008.

■ MSNBC’s Amy Robach in 2006 mildly wondered if “Death of a President” movie depicting the imagined assassination of President Bush was “poor taste or, as some say, thought-provoking?”

■ On his radio show in 2009, Ed Schultz wished for Dick Cheney’s death: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country … Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you?”

■ Also on his radio show, in 2010, Schultz shouted: “Dick Cheney’s heart’s a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him!”

■ Then-Air America host Montel Williams in 2009 urged Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to kill herself: “Slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to – or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.”

■ Writing on the Huffington Post in 2007, radio host Charles Karel Bouley mocked: “I hear about Tony Snow and I say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you? Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot?”

■ “I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” — Host Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, March 2, 2007, discussing how a few commenters at a left-wing blog were upset that an attempt to kill Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan had failed.

■ “Earlier today, a rental truck carried a half a million ballots from Palm Beach to the Florida Supreme Court there in Tallahassee. CNN had live helicopter coverage from the truck making its way up the Florida highway, and for a few brief moments, America held the hope that O.J. Simpson had murdered Katherine Harris.” — Bill Maher on ABC’s Politically Incorrect, November 30, 2000.

■ Host Tina Gulland: “I don’t think I have any Jesse Helms defenders here. Nina?”NPR’s Nina Totenberg: “Not me. I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” — Exchange on the July 8, 1995 Inside Washington, after Helms said the government spends too much on AIDS.

■ “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease….He is an absolutely reprehensible person.” — USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.

I have further documented numerous concrete acts of violence by the left in two articles here and here which I wrote during the debates that occurred last year when Democrats falsely demonized the right.

Furthermore, you should do a review of history. Go back to the 1960s and consider movements and organizations such as the Weathermen, Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers, the anti-war movement, the radical environmentalist movement, and the violence that has been all-too typical of the left.

I believe by now I’ve made my point.

Before moving on, allow me to demonstrate how top Democrats have deliberately manufactured blame and guilt at conservatives for crimes that liberals and Democrats in fact committed.

First, there is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. reflecting on how his Uncle Jack (JFK) was essentially killed by right wing conservative hatred as a device to “me to” the liberal movement to demonize conservatives as being responsible for the Tuscon, Arizona shooting by a deranged psychopath. There was only one problem: JFK was murdered by a communist named Lee Harvey Oswald, who somehow is never mentioned a single time in Kennedy Jr.’s fabricated account.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

What’s wrong with Pelosi’s words and tears? Well, in demagoguing conservatives for their climate of violence-generating hate, she nowhere reflects upon the fact that Harvey Milk and George Moscone were murdered by a Democrat who was angry because his fellow Democrats had not reappointed him to his government job. And her equating these murders with right wing violence is not just absurd, but evil.

Both of these accounts are readily historically verifiable. The Democrats in question literally fabricate history in order to blame the party and ideology that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with these murders. What we see are people who are clearly close enough to the events in question to know that what they are saying is not true. They are either liars without shame, or they have literally so committed themselves to false ideology that they have used every possible device of rationalization to believe obvious lies. You can take your pick.

So you take an event like the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (along with the murder of conservative Republican-appointed federal judge John Roll, btw), and demonize conservatives for it, and it is merely one more documented case of obvious demonization that merely serves to demonstrates that if you want to see hate, just look at liberals.

And, yes, if deranged monster Jared Loughner was anything, he was a liberal. One thing is certain; he certainly was not a conservative, and he certainly was not influenced by any “rightwing climate of hate.”

Clearly, I did not attempt to prove that conservatives have not said anything hateful. First of all it would be impossible to prove a negative; and second whether conservatives have said hateful things about liberals really isn’t the point here. The point is that when Democrats denounce the right for “hate,” they merely demonstrate that they are hypocrites without any shame whatsoever.

This baseless and hateful charge about rightwing hate being responsible for the Tucson shooting that was recently repeated by dozens of Democrat elected officials, hundreds of mainstream media journalists, and thousands upon thousands of liberal bloggers, literally becomes a tacit acknowledgment that it is in fact the left that practices hate.

Tomorrow: Part 2, on how free speech political rhetoric should be and is unrelated to acts of violence: “On The So-Called Link Between Political Rhetoric And Violence.”

Pilate therefore said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” – John 18:37-38

Well, one thing’s for sure: the truth sure isn’t what the Democrat rhetoric is spouting in the aftermath of the Tucson, AZ shooting that resulted in the wounding of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords among 19 shooting victims, with six killed.

I was amazed to see the thousands of hits an old article I wrote had recently generated. The reason? Democrats who had demonized Sarah Palin for her “targeting strategy” – which Democrats themselves routinely do – are now demonizing her again because one of the vulnerable districts Palin identified well over a year ago was Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ District 8.

And then there are the “Jared Loughner Facebook accounts” which “have all right wing books, websites, and people that he points to.” Just more false flag operations by Democrats to falsely associate conservatives with the psycho assassin.

This document is circulating, purportedly showing Jared Loughner is a registered Republican.

There are two reasons why the document is faked, and one official proclamation that undermines it:

TUCSON is spelled TUSCON. People who live in a city do not mispell it’s name.

If you go to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission website and put in the address listed on this “registration” it comes up in Senator District 26. This fraud voter reg says District 27. (Hat tip, Brytani)

A blatantly partisan ideologue Newsweek “journalist” isn’t one bit disappointed in the sea of lies that characterize the Democrat response to this tragedy. Far from it:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman. Congress won’t enact gun control, as it did in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but perhaps something positive can come from this.

This little Joseph Goebbels minion basically wants Barack Obama to deliver a “State of the Reich” Address and demagogue this tragic shooting into a demand to round up all the conservatives and put them in camps.

The strategy that the little Newsweek rodent recommends has been successfully tried in the past – by one Adolf Hitler. Let us hope that the “new bipartisan Obama” (although there is this caveat) is now getting his advice from more humans and fewer rodents.

Democrats and their media lackeys are decrying the “angry” or “hateful” rhetoric which caused this shooting en masse. And, of course, they mean “conservative” and “Republican” “angry” or “hateful” rhetoric.

But why would anyone think that? Apart from the fact that they are ideologues and propagandists, I mean? There’s no evidence whatsoever that Jared Loughner EVER listened to “right wing talk radio,” or supported Sarah Palin, or was a member of the tea party, or even cared about charged political issues such as health care. The evidence is, rather, that he was severely mentally sick and living in his own twisted world.

They make the prima facia claim (with little or no supporting argument) that the angry partisan political climate can set off the mentally unbalanced. Which is itself a mentally unbalanced claim to make.

A few things, there. First, if this is so, and they really believe that, then how do they justify the eight incredibly angry years of “Bush derangement syndrome”? Why was it not true when Republicans were in power, but not true now that Democrats are in power? The mainstream media is far too pathologically biased and dishonest to show you that the WORST “climate of hate” comes from the left.

Second, why do Democrats, if they really believe their own crap, continue to make such bitter and polarizing comments if such comments can push the already unhinged over the edge? Take our liberal propagandist “sheriff, for instance:

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government — the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country, is getting to be outrageous,” Dupnik said Sunday.

It’s clear who the sheriff has in mind. As he told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly: “We see one party trying to block the attempts of another party to make this a better country. … We as a country need to look into our souls and into our hearts and say is what we’re doing really in the best interest of this country, or is there something better we can do.”

Got that? The shooting was motivated by the rhetoric of “one party” — the Republicans — trying to stop the Democrats from making this “a better country.” Talk about “hate speech.”

Let me ask you, just for the sake of argument. Suppose that there is some crazed liberal out there in the wings. And said crazed liberal hears his law enforcement say, “We see [the Republican] Party trying to block the attempts of [the Democrat] Party to make this a better country.” And, of course, he’s aghast. What can be done to stop this evil Republican Party from keeping the Democrats from finally making this “a better country”???

Something must be done. Someone must act. By any means necessary. Including – maybe even embracing – violence.

“My client says he had to punish those Republican congressmen. He says the president commanded him to kill those congressmen.”

Now, to set the record straight, having pointed out just a few of Obama’s comments, I don’t think Obama was calling for violence. Because, apparently unlike Democrats, I possess the moral intelligence to understand that he was using the same sort of common metaphors as Sarah Palin has when she has said, “Don’t retreat, reload.” And, on the flip side, I realize that if Sarah Palin is a disgrace, then the president of the United States is far more so, given the very office from which he has said these things.

A reasonable person can’t help but be confused at the constant double-standard that comes from Democrats. If this kind of rhetoric is wrong, if it leads to violence, then why do they keep doing it themselves??? And why do they denounce Republicans even while they themselves are doing the very thing they say is evil to do??? And how do their skulls not explode from containing all the contradictions???

Let me offer something that happened to me a couple of years ago to show how political rhetoric – whether “angry” or “hateful” or not – has little if anything to do with setting off an unhinged mind.

A very sweet lady in my church asked several of her friends to help her with a big garage sale she wanted to have. Being a sweet lady, she asked the police if it was okay to put out signs around town notifying drivers of her yard sale. Which most people just do. And, being a sweet lady, when the police told her people weren’t supposed to put out such signage, she didn’t do it. Which meant that her yard sale – with all the effort that went into it – was twisting in the wind.

So I made a nice, big sign that said “Yard Sale” along with the address, drove to the main drag in town, and waved that darned thing around to first the northbound traffic, then the southbound traffic, and so on and so forth. And when I came back a couple hours later, I was assured that my incredibly soul-numbing boredom had not been in vain: a lot of people suddenly started showing up.

I love sweet little old ladies. And don’t you dare mess with one while I’m anywhere nearby, if you like your teeth.

Well, all that was to bring up something that happened while I was holding that sign that merely said “YARD SALE” with a house address. A woman walking on the sidewalk came up to me, took a look at the sign, and screamed, “Yard Sale! YARD SALE!” And just went off on me in an uncontrollable rant for two or three minutes.

I never said a single word to her. There was no point. She was clearly not in her right mind, and there’s no point trying to argue with or reason with deranged people.

And the point is, anything can set these people off. Absolutely anything. Even the words “Yard Sale” on a cardboard sign, accompanied by the probably wide-eyes of a helpless man staring into the bulging eyeballs of the insane.

It’s not a matter of “avoid the anger.” Avoid everything. Shut down the economy. Close the stores. Stay in your homes. Shut off all the television and radio stations. Make tinfoil hats. Because even your very thoughtwaves can set these people off.

So this notion that Republicans and conservatives must “tone down the hate” – while of course Democrats may continue to feel free to unleash hell – is so paranoid and so unhinged that I can’t help but watch these Democrats and these reporters and see the face of that whacked-out woman going off on me about my yard sale sign.

Sheriff Dupnik saying that what people hear on the radio and on television makes them do the things they do could well come right out of the brain of Jared Loughner, who merely replaces “radio and television” with “government.” It’s equally insane.

I can easily picture the “sheriff,” and liberals like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow cringing in lead-lined bunkers hoping that their tinfoil hats are thick enough to prevent Sarah Palin – who already lives rent-free in their heads – from taking over that final molecule and forcing them to do her evil bidding.

That’s basically the message of the left right now: “Put on your tinfoil hats, people! Because your all in danger of having your minds commandeered by rightwing hate!”

And, at risk of boring you, that was precisely what Jared Loughner’s disturbed and paranoid brain feared: mind control.

To make the Democrats’ despicable argument all the more so, based on their view, you could reasonably blame Gabrielle Giffords for the shooting. Jared Loughner was listening to her, and she clearly didn’t say the right thing – which incited him to violence.

Every single journalist and every single politician who demands that people – and particularly conservative people – tone down their political views should be immediately discredited as nothing more than despicable ideological hacks.

What we are seeing is the murder of seven victims. Not just six. The seventh is truth, which is now being contorted and ripped beyond the breaking point for the sake of partisan political ideology.

And I’ll end by saying this: the record of history could not be more clear: the worse monsters in political history have without fail been those who have demanded that their opponents be silent. The last thing we should ever want to follow is the political rationale that says, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Having documented that the left’s demonization of conservative “rhetoric” was nothing more than a hypocritical and immoral attempt to politically exploit a tragedy, I would like to go a little further and examine whether the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech should be denounced – as the Democrats have clearly tried to do in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting.

Should angry political rhetoric be suppressed? Our founding fathers clearly didn’t think so. And, truth be told, they freely let a fair amount of “rhetoric” fly themselves, during their day. Furthermore, they codified that belief in the Bill of Rights.

But that isn’t the question I intend to examine. Rather, I want to go further and ask, “Does angry political speech – call it ‘rhetoric’ if you want – lead to violence in a democracy?”

Whoever did this terrible thing, and for whatever reason he did it, we have to be able to disagree in America without resorting to violence. Or our entire system of government will collapse. There can be no democratic republic in a police state.

Pray for Gabrielle Giffords. Pray for her staff, some of whom were terribly wounded or even killed. Pray for the safety of every single politician in America. And especially pray for the safety of those politicians with whom you most disagree.

And later in that same article:

This event is something that should transcend the political arguments and the debate over which party should run America that constantly goes on. Because ANY act of violence which accompanies a political statement of any kind undermines our freedom and liberty.

Because, like I said above, you cannot have a democratic republic in a police state. And the more politically violent any group or individuals become, the more police powers become necessary to impose order.

All that to point out that I, as someone who can easily be identified by the pejorative “right winger,” would in fact NEVER call for acts of violence. And I do not oppose political violence in spite of the fact that I am a conservative, but rather BECAUSE I am a conservative.

The fundamental tenant of political conservatism is the belief in limited government. Conservatives are not “anti-government” any more than are leftists. The far-leftist communists overthrew the current government in Russia in 1917; American liberals were opposed to the government of the Bush administration just a short time ago. Conservatives don’t want NO government, but rather they want a federal government which is limited in size, sphere and power. The debate isn’t between “pro-government” versus “anti-government,” but rather small government versus expansive government. And my point is that as a conservative I don’t want a Big Brother state. I don’t want the police on every corner. I don’t want myriad laws restricting my freedoms. I don’t want government imposing its will on me in order to “restore order” or impose “social justice.” And frankly, if any political ideology in this country wants those things, it is the left.

I would further point out that the reason we do not need to resort to violence in our American democratic system is because we have the ability to use persuasion in place of and instead of violence. But if you take away the ability to use persuasion to change society, all that is left is violence.

But let me go even further than that. Let me take the most visceral political issue of all – abortion – and examine that issue in light of the possibility of rightwing violence.

Let me state my position on abortion clearly: it is nothing short of murder. It is the unjustified killing of an innocent human being.

When President Obama gave his speech at the memorial service in Tucson, which shooting victim did he single out for the greatest attention? It wasn’t Rep. Gabrielle Giffords; it was the youngest victim, nine year-old Christina Taylor. What did Obama say? “I want America to be as good as she imagined it.”

For someone who is pro-life, it is no surprise that the president would have focused on the youngest victim. Because 9 year-old Christina had so much unrealized potential, so many dreams that would never be fulfilled, so much life that was taken away from her. And it is precisely that deprivation of potential that makes her death so much more tragic and heart-wrenching than the 79 year-old victim – whose murder was obviously also a tragedy.

Allow me to consider the fifty-three MILLION innocent human beings who likewise should have had their entire lives ahead of them but instead had their lives violently and ruthlessly snuffed out. Entire lifetimes of limitless human potential were ripped and dissolved away with surgical scissors and saline solutions.

Let me say even more: Adolf Hitler treated six million Jews as being “less than human” and ruthlessly exterminated them. One of the greatest monsters in human history, and he is only one-NINTH as murderous as the Democrat Party in the United States of America. There’s a term the Nazis used – Lebensunwertes Leben (“a life unworthy to be lived”) – that with all due respect is every bit as much an ideology of the Democrat Party as it was of the Nazi Party.

I think of Democrats who call themselves “Christians” celebrating Mary the Mother of Jesus’ “right to choose” to kill “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) in her womb, and I want to puke. Your theology would murder Jesus in His mother’s womb; your “god” is abortion.

And I believe that one day Democrats will stand before a just and holy God, Who will send them to burn in hell for voting in election after election for untold millions of the most innocent of all human beings to be slaughtered for the sake of convenience.

And yet I’ve never killed anyone, or ever even once advocated the killing of anyone, who was pro-abortion.

Do you want to know why?

I earlier mentioned Adolf Hitler. Let me return to him now for a thought experiment that will help me make my point.

Suppose that I could go back in time and assassinate Adolf Hitler. Would I do it?

Well, first let me ask, would you do it? Take a moment and think about it before reading any further.

My answer is yes, I believe I would do so. I believe that I would kill Adolf Hitler. Not for sake of revenge; but for the sake of all living things. I would kill Adolf Hitler to save millions of human lives and prevent human misery and suffering beyond imagination.

Ah, you say. So why not apply that reasoning to abortion doctors, and prevent the murders of untold babies? Wouldn’t that be consistent?

And I would answer no, it isn’t. Because in the case of Adolf Hitler, we have the benefit of 100%, 20/2o hindsight. We have the record of Hitler’s entire life. We know what he did, and we know what he intended to continue to do.

Now consider abortion doctor George Tiller, aka “Tiller the baby killer.” He was murdered – in a church, no less – by someone who said that “preborn children’s lives were in imminent danger.” And yet it is important to recognize that the pro-life movement immediately denounced the murder.

Let me tell you what I don’t know about George Tiller’s life that I did know about Adolf Hitler’s life.

Just like every single one of those fifty-three million innocent human beings who were murdered in abortion mills, I don’t know what George Tiller’s future would have been.

What would have happened if had I killed Joan Appleton while she was still performing abortions?

Think of the potential for good that she has since done with her life that would have been snuffed out.

And, neither I or the murderer of George Tiller or anyone else knows what would have happened in George Tiller’s life had he not been murdered. Imagine the testimony that the world could have heard had the most notorious abortion doctor in the country come out condemning abortion.

In point of fact, the man who murdered George Tiller in his moral ignorance committed the very same crime that abortionists commit which makes abortion so evil; he failed to consider the very essence of what he professed to stand for.

In effect, George Tiller’s murderer committed a retroactive abortion. He put aside Tiller’s humanity, personhood and Imago Dei; he dismissed Tiller’s “right to life”; he ignored Tiller’s “potential.” And he killed him.

Paradoxially, all the murderer of George Tiller did – condemned as he was by the pro-abortion movement – was use the exact same mindset that the abortion movement employs every single day.

And there really is no doubt, once we truly consider the issues. Ever hear the argument that fetuses aren’t human beings, so it’s okay to kill them? Think again. Both science and logic assure us that – from the moment of conception – that thing in the womb of a human mother is fully a human being. Take a moment and consider the taxonomic system by which every living thing is rigorously categorized and classified. By that system a human embryo is of the kingdom Anamalia, of the phylum Chordata, of the class Mammalia, of the order Primate, of the family Pongidae, of the genus Homo, and of the species Sapiens – same as any other human being. Put even more simply, that embryo is a human by virtue of its parents, and a being by the fact that it is a living thing: it is a human being.

So, yes, I will be a voice crying out in the wilderness about the vicious evil of abortion. I will cry out in despair about the tragedy of millions upon millions of little Christina Taylors who were eradicated as if they were diseases before they got any chance to live out the potential that they should have had. But I won’t kill. Because I believe in human life.

Governments have what St. Paul described as the power of the sword to carry out justice (see Romans 13:1-4). But I, acting on my own authority, don’t have the right of either vengeance or vigilantism. Because vengeance is not mine; and because justice for criminals is not mine to carry out. It is for God and for the governments which He has ordained on this earth to carry out those tasks.

Let me now also say that there is no connection in a healthy mind, in a healthy society, between rhetoric and violence. None whatsoever.

And what of an unhealthy mind?

I made the point in a previous article that I once had a mentally ill woman literally come unglued on me as I held a sign that merely said, “YARD SALE.” And I concluded then what I point out here: that if we’re going to ban or condemn “angry political rhetoric” for its possible effects upon sick minds, we’re going to have to condemn far more than just political speech. Because literally anything can set off a sick mind. Even a yard sale becomes dangerous.

If we banish everything that could set off a diseased mind, we necessarily must become the Big Brother totalitarian state which I earlier described fearing. Because what couldn’t set off such a mind, which would then mean what sphere of life would the government not need to control?

I believe that I have explained why a consistent conservative would never employ violence to advance a political cause. I also believe I have done so by employing a worldview and an argument that Democrats not only don’t acknowledge, but frankly don’t even understand.

[For those who would like to see more regarding the relationship between Nazism and the political left, see my article on the connection between leftist thought and fascism; please see my comment on the connection between “fascism” and American liberalism, and see my articles on the connection between postmodernism and fascism here and see also here, especially before you post a comment trying to argue with me].

So it is long past time for liberals to stop denouncing conservatives and finally turn their examination upon themselves.

PHOENIX — Investigators are looking into a case of vandalism at the state Capitol, sparked by the newly signed anti-illegal-immigration law.Capitol police arrived on the scene at about 6 a.m., after a swastika was found smeared on the glass doors of the House and Senate buildings.

While it first looked like mud on the doors, it turned out be refried beans.

Thank God that Obama is protecting us from these dangerous rightwing radicals. Otherwise I truly believe we’d all be dead.

These old ladies are clearly so much more dangerous than those out-of-control swastika-loving pro-illegal immigration protesters it is absolutely unreal. At least they are to the Obama regime.

This isn’t a joke, by any means. The SWAT team marched into this rally and left little girls and their mothers frightened and in tears as this video via Gateway Pundit shows:

A little girl at her first tea party rally saw the storm troopers marching in in their military precision and repeatedly asks her mother, “Mom, mom, what’s going on? What are we doing wrong? What are we doing wrong?”

I could have answered that little girl: “We have beliefs that differ from the regime’s, sweetheart.”

In the most terrifying fascist and Marxist totalitarian regimes, the government used all the propaganda it could muster to make those who protested their atrocities the villains and those who carried out the atrocities the heroes.

And our totalitarian big government regime is doing it even as we speak – aided and abetted by the most openly partisan and ideological mainstream media in American history.

That would be a genuinely incredible headline to see on CNN, MSNBC, or, heck, even Fox News, wouldn’t it?

Not going to happen. It would mean that the mainstream media actually had the capacity for balance – and it doesn’t.

A Factiva search for mainstream media articles on the murder of Jim Pouillon returned a total of 19 hits; by contrast, the murder of abortionist Dr. George Tiller turned up 643 hits. That’s “balance” for you. The mainline media’s project is to tarnish the right with intolerance, hate, and murder. And they simply aren’t willing to entertain any facts that conflict with their chosen narrative.

The fact that the murder occurred on the anniversary of 9/11 makes the “terrorist” angle even more obvious – but the mainstream media will avoid that angle like Superman avoids kryptonite.

A prominent pro-life activist was shot repeatedly and murdered outside of a high school, and the media that came absolutely unglued over “rightwing extremists,” ” intolerance,” “hate,” “domestic terrorism,” etc. etc. etc. will very likely not even mention it. They just don’t have the integrity. And they certainly will not use the “leftwing” pejoratives to denounce the murder of a pro-life activist the same way they denounced the “rightwing” for the murder of abortionist Dr. George Tiller.

OWOSSO, Michigan — State police at the Corunna post have confirmed a well-known anti-abortion activist was shot multiple times and killed this morning in front of Owosso High School.

The victim’s identity has not yet been released but the shooting occurred around 7:30 a.m., after most students were off the buses and safely inside the building, said Owosso schools transportation supervisor Jayne Campbell.

State police also confirmed that a suspect was taken into custody about 8:15 a.m. at the suspect’s home.

Owosso High School secretary Wendy Smith said the students remain in lockdown this morning and confirmed that no students were involved and all are safe with classes going on as normal. The shooting did not occur on school property, Smith said.

Meanwhile, police have completely ringed with police tape a section of North Street in front of the school.

A black car can be seen parked at the corner of North and Whitehaven streets, where a portable oxygen tank is lying in a front yard next to a large sign bearing the image of a baby and the word “Life.”

Mind you, even the media’s presentation of this activist is typical of the left: one who favors the killing of babies in the womb is “pro-choice,” standing for something. But one who stands up for life is depicted as being “anti.” It would be nice if the media that likes the term “anti abortion” would choose a similar term such as “anti life” to describe what they invariably call the “pro choice” movement.

We’re seeing it depicted in the health care debate. Liberals are “pro,” and conservatives are “anti.” The fact of the matter is I’m actually “pro” a lot of things regarding health care. I’m “pro” for tort reform, for ending mandates and allowing competition among the 1300 private insurers, for dealing with the problems caused by illegal immigration relating to health care, for keeping government socialism from taking over more of the system than it already has, and a lot of other things. And liberals are “anti” a lot of things, aren’t they? But it’s more rhetorically effective for the mainline media to describe me as a “health care opponent” belonging to “the party of no.”

One lone nutjob shot Dr. Tiller, and Keith Olbermann made an entire movement responsible for the act. What do you want to bet this dishonest purveyor of propaganda at a dishonest network will somehow find the murder of a well-known pro-life activist as nothing to become concerned about?

Every single mainstream media, every single liberal blogger, everyone period, that used the murder of Dr. Tiller to attack the right will now either similarly demonize themselves for their “leftwing terrorist murderer,” or else stand forever condemned of hypocrisy, demagoguery, and propaganda.

Dr. Carhart calls the murderer of his beloved colleague a “terrorist” saying his friend’s death is “a declaration of war” on the part of radical anti-abortion activists whom he calls “fundamentalist terrorists . . . no different from al-Qaida, the Taliban or any of them.”

Is this guy going to have the intellectual and moral decency to demonize radical pro-abortion activists as a bunch of “fundamentalist terrorists… no different from al-Qaida,” et al, or is he going to be the hypocritical, dishonest ideologue slimebag that I fully expect him to be?

Obviously, that amounts to a rhetorical question, doesn’t it?

Well, allow me to provide a newsflash. It is not “the left’s” fault that this pro-life activist was murdered. It was the fault of one deranged man.

The left was despicable beyond the pale for not recognizing that fact when Dr. Tiller was murdered.

I suppose that is one of the big things that differentiates the right from the left. For the left, individual identity, individual responsibility, amounts to a social construct. If an abortionist is murdered, well, the blame must extend to everyone who in any way believes abortion is wrong and speaks out. You can’t just hold one man accountable for his actions, after all. Rather, you are a soulless meat puppet driven entirely by DNA and social conditioning. “O’Reilly made me do it.”

At least, you can’t if he comes from the political right – and his actions are a convenient target for liberal propaganda and demagoguery.

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe profoundly in individual identity and individual responsibility. Does the left pump out hatred by the tonnage? Sure it does. But when some nut commits murder or performs some other hateful act, it is THAT person who bears the full weight of responsibility for his or her actions. And that person alone.

So allow me to pat myself on the back for my moral superiority to Keith Olbermann and everyone like him as I refuse to attribute their “anti-choice” characterization of this martyr for the pro-life cause as being the reason for his murder. Because whoever shot this pro-life activist HAD a choice – and chose to murder.

I’m the one who affirms choice, while demagogues like Olbermann and Dr. Carhart – who call me “anti-choice” for my pro-life stand – in all actuality believe that people don’t really have a “choice” at all, but are merely robots programmed by Bill O’Reilly or some other favored bogeyman.

The simple fact of the matter is that the left is “pro-choice” when it suits their agenda, and profoundly anti-choice the rest of the time.

I leave you with a profound statement from the “terrorist” “anti-choice” position:

“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” — Mother Teresa

In the mainstream media narrative, Sarah Palin is demonized as “about half a whack job” and her statement about “death panels” is literally interpreted in a way I’d love to see them apply JUST ONCE to the Constitution. Conservatives were denounced as an “angry mob,” as “un-American,” and as exhibiting Nazi characteristics by the Democrat Speaker of the House.

The media loves to talk about rightwing fearmongering.

I’d like to say a little more about leftwing fearmongering.

How about the one that we need to pass health care reform in order to get our economy out of the toilet?

“The country has to reform its health care system or else not only are you going to continue to have people really going through a hard time, we’re also going see a continuing escalation of our budget problems that can’t get under control,” Obama told Moran. “I think America has to win it here.”

In the dialogue surrounding health care, Obama warned against “scare tactics,” which he said are fostering anxiety and serving to distract Americans from the plan’s principles.

What’s nice about the last one is that it includes fearmongering on the one hand with warning against “scare tactics” on the other. Obama tells us one the one hand that our economy will plummet unless we implement ObamaCare, and then demonizes everyone who has a different fearmongering message.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose “the sort of fundamental changes” necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.

Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory — or cost curve — of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting, “The curve is being raised.” His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation’s bleak budget outlook even worse.

But all of our efforts to strengthen the economy will fail—let me say this again; I feel so strongly about this—all of our efforts to strengthen the economy will fail unless we also take this year, not next year, not 5 years from now but this year, bold steps to reform our health care system.

In 1992, we spent 14 percent of our income on health care, more than 30 percent more than any other country in the world, and yet we were the only advanced nation that did not provide a basic package of health care benefits to all of its citizens. Unless we change the present pattern, 50 percent of the growth in the deficit between now and the year 2000 will be in health care costs. By the year 2000 almost 20 percent of our income will be in health care. Our families will never be secure, our businesses will never be strong, and our Government will never again be fully solvent until we tackle the health care crisis. We must do it this year.

The combination of the rising cost of care and the lack of care and the fear of losing care are endangering the security and the very lives of millions of our people. And they are weakening our economy every day. Reducing health care costs can liberate literally hundreds of billions of dollars for new investment in growth and jobs. Bringing health costs in line with inflation would do more for the private sector in this country than any tax cut we could give and any spending program we could promote. Reforming health care over the long run is critically essential to reducing not only our deficit but to expanding investment in America.

What’s interesting about this is that liberals depict the Clinton years as the time when the streets were lined with gold and every child went to bed in a warm house with a full tummy.

So the point would obviously be, either Clinton was fearmongering health care in a way that did not turn out to be true at all, or the “glorious Clinton economy” is itself a fabrication. Because somehow Bill Clinton had to flounder along with no health care reform.

I might also point out that Bill Clinton’s famous statement from his State of the Union Speech in January 1996 – “THE ERA OF BIG GOVERNMENT IS OVER” – tacitly recognized the new Republican era, and which in reality was the ultimate reason why the Clinton economy became ultimately successful.

Democrats were wiped out in 1994 as Republicans swept into power when Americans became fed up with Democrat incompetence and massive spending. And Bill Clinton was wise enough to recognize the handwriting on the wall. As a result, he transitioned into a fiscal moderate and avoided the fate of his party.

But now the man who recognized that “The era of big government is over” is back to his pre-1994 ways. Bill Clinton has joined Barack Obama with the very same big spending, big government socialistic mindset that brought the Democrats to such historic disaster in 1994.

There are many things we can do to improve our health care system. That goes without saying. But the Democrat’s presentation that opposing their system is opposing “change” or “reform” is simply asinine. If any change is better than our present course, than we should just nuke ourselves and be done with it: that would be “change,” after all. We need to recognize that there is good reform and there is bad reform – and government-run health care is simply “bad” reform.

ObamaCare suffers from massive policy problems that go right to the heart of the greater debate surrounding the size of government, the size of Obama’s unprecedented deficits, and the unsustainable size of our debt. Democrats have a real problem explaining how they are going to spend $1.6 trillion and yet bring down costs – especially given the CBO’s damning analysis. They have a problem explaining how they’re going to take hundreds of millions out of Medicare and yet not affect the quality of care to Medicare beneficiaries. And they have a problem explaining how they’re not going to end up transferring over a hundred million Americans out of their employee-based health care and into the “public option” when good analysis sees exactly that happening (and see also here).

We need to STOP health care “reform” until it includes tort reform such as loser pays, until it includes an end to state and federal mandates, until it includes allowing our 1300 private insurance companies to compete across state lines. And we need to STOP health care “reform” until it EXCLUDES giving full medical coverage to more than 12 million illegal immigrants, until it excludes “public options,” excludes “Co-Ops,” and excludes any other device that becomes a backdoor guarantee to government health care.

These mobs are bussed in by well funded, highly organized groups run by Republican operatives and funded by the special interests who are desperately trying to stop the agenda for change the President was elected to bring to Washington. Despite the headline grabbing nature of these angry mobs and their disruptions of events, they are not reflective of where the American people are on the issues – or the hundreds of thousands of thoughtful discussions taking place around kitchen tables, water coolers and in homes.

Why are people showing up to town hall meetings in droves and shouting down Democrat politicians and White House officials over the Democrats’ multi-trillion health care takeover? It’s manufactured outrage ginned up by some vast, rightwing conspiracy. Let’s ignore the fact that Democrats routinely bus in their people, or that no one was more “well funded” and “highly organized” than the Obama political machine.

But a snippet from a Politico article that is describing the vitriolic town hall meetings is telling:

Within an hour of the disruption, police were called in to escort the 59-year-old Democrat — who has held more than 100 town hall meetings since he was elected in 2002 — to his car safely.

“I have no problem with someone disagreeing with positions I hold,” Bishop said, noting that, for the time being, he was using other platforms to communicate with his constituents. “But I also believe no one is served if you can’t talk through differences.”

A registered Democrat confronting New York Democrat Steny Hoyer at a town hall in Utica said:

“Why would you guys try to stuff a health care bill down our throats in three to four weeks when the President took six months to pick what he wanted for a dog for his kids?!?! What are you doing? What are you doing? Are you willing to have your family members sign on to every bill that you pass?”

Pundits are now using the term “Town hell” to describe the outrage with which voters are confronting Democrats pushing for Obamacare. And it is by no means just Republicans who are utterly outraged and confronting their elected officials.

American voters, by a 55 – 35 percent margin, are more worried that Congress will spend too much money and add to the deficit than it will not act to overhaul the health care system, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. By a similar 57 – 37 percent margin, voters say health care reform should be dropped if it adds “significantly” to the deficit.

By a 72 – 21 percent margin, voters do not believe that President Barack Obama will keep his promise to overhaul the health care system without adding to the deficit, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University national poll finds.

American voters disapprove 52 – 39 percent of the way President Obama is handling health care, down from 46 – 42 percent approval July 1, with 60 – 34 percent disapproval from independent voters. Voters say 59 – 36 percent that Congress should not pass health care reform if only Democratic members support it.

Obama and Democrats are not just losing the argument among Republicans called in by insurance companies to raise havoc. They are in fact losing the debate with the overwhelming majority of the American people – as every single poll on health care shows. It is as disingenuous as hell to try to make the angry “mobs” as being Republican plants. Yet that is precisely what the Democrat Party is doing, and the mainstream media is helping them do it.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

This is an example – unprecedented in modern American political history – of a President of the United States seeking information on political opponents who are exercising their 2nd Amendment-protected rights. Imagine the appalled and angry outrage if George W. Bush had solicited the White House to create such an “enemies list.”

The whole affair very much reminds me of the Orwellian 1984 description of anonymous informers – including children against their own parents – spying on and reporting potential thought-criminals who might endanger The Party.

And of course it reminded me of another incredibly Orwellian statement from the Obama administration on the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program:

“This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the US Government. Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.”

Heritage.org suggests we turn in Democrats to the White House as “the people spreading disinformation about Obamacare.”

And in point of fact, we should turn in Obama to the White House for being one of the people encouraging anger and a mob mentality:

“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face,” [Obama] said.

“I don’t want to quell anger. People are right to be angry. I’m angry. What I want us to do is channel our anger in a constructive way.”

Presumably, that meant trying to limit his followers from just shouting from the streets in front of AIG employees’ houses rather than actually entering the homes and murdering families. Which was nice of him, considering that only Chris Dodd accepted more contributions from AIG.

Hot Air provides the following list of exceptions to the Democrats’ charge of Republican extremism:

I found it amusing and utterly despicable at the same time to read about a 14 year old girl who – after noticing all the Obama T-shirts – decided to wear a shirt that said, “McCain Girl.” And was utterly and hatefully attacked for doing so. Just never forget that Republicans are intolerant and divisive, though.

The left is a group of people who come completely unglued if others do unto them as they did unto others. Hypocrisy defines them; it is their quintessential essence.

The White House is saying that the outrage over ObamaCare “appears to be orchestrated” and “organized” by rightwing organizations. The word “organized” should show how demonstrably ridiculous Obama’s outrage truly is, given his pride in having been a “community organizer.” And let us realize that “orchestrate” is merely another synonym for “organize.”

This community organizer is now mad that communities are beginning to organize to stop government health care they absolutely do not want?

I’ve seen about a dozen videos of so-called “mobs” shouting at Democrats. What I’ve noticed is that members of the audience would ask pointed questions, and the crowd only started shouting down Democrats when their elected officials give stupid and dismissive answers. When someone asked Kathleen Sebelius and Arlen Spector why Congress wasn’t even bothering to read the bills they were voting for, for example, nobody started screaming at Sebelius until she gave the utterly ridiculous answer that she had never served in Congress; nor did they scream at Spector until he answered that they had to work very fast and didn’t have time to read the bills that are transforming our society. And the crowd erupted in outrage at such stupid and contemptible answers.

Youtube video of Arlen Specter shouted down after saying “We have to do this fast.”

My own view is this: the Democrat establishment is trying to marginalize the huge crowds going to town halls to confront their elected representatives and telll them NOT to vote for this terrible health care bill. They want the Blue Dog Democrats to ignore the crowds and dismiss them as “plants.” They do so at their own political peril.